Do You Have Mild, Moderate, or Severe Depression? Here, Take This Placebo, er, Antidepressant

Yet another meta-analysis with the same damn result -- antidepressants for most cases of depression are placebos. This is in a paper with authors including Jay Amsterdam, Richard Shelton, and Jan Fawcett, who are not exactly cut from the Peter Breggin mold. This was based on six studies which compared antidepressant to placebo in patients who had a wide range of depression severity. Key results:

• Mild to moderate depression: Effect size of d = .11, which is tiny (and was not statistically significant)
  
• Severe depression: Effect size of d = .17, which is pretty darn small (and not statistically significant)
• Very severe depression: Effect size of d = .47, which is moderate.

Hmmmm. Not looking so hot. Of course, anyone who has paid attention to the clinical trial literature on antidepressants over the past 10 years or so already knew this. But now it's in JAMA, so a wider audience may now pay attention. Or ignore it. Good marketing usually beats science, so maybe this won't make any difference.

Antidepressants for all but very severe depression: All the benefits of placebo plus the added bonus of side effects. Sign me up! To quote the authors: "What makes our findings surprising is the high level of depression symptom severity that appears to be required for clinically meaningful drug/placebo differences to emerge, particularly given the evidence that the majority of patients receiving ADM in clinical practice present with scores below these levels." In other words, most people who receive antidepressants would likely have done just as well on placebo (without the side effects).

A few other posts on the topic:

• The long-lasting placebo effect
• Sexual side effects of SSRIs
• Paxil: How to lie
• The much-vaunted public health benefits of antidepressants
• Antidepressants offer weak efficacy for all but most severe depression
• Hiding negative data on antidepressants
• Suicidal tendencies? Nah, not here
  

I've linked the abstract of the latest JAMA study here. Enjoy.

Atypical Antipsychotics For Depression: Now With "Considerable Evidence"

I've been wanting to write about this for months. Here goes. We know that antipsychotics are the new panacea for all things mental health-related, including depression (1, 2, 3). But critics kept pointing to a pesky lack of evidence that such treatments actually worked. Bristol-Myers Squibb, manufacturer of Abilify, has been running a disinformation campaign in medical journals to tout its drug as an antidepressant. Their attempts to paint a positive picture of Abilify's antidepressant properties and its allegedly fantastic safety/tolerability profile have been simultaneously tragic and amusing (1, 2, 3).

We're now moving on to something bigger... It ain't just Abilify, folks. It's all the atypicals. They are all antidepressants. According to the authors of a recent meta-analysis, for atypical antipsychotics: "At present, this body of evidence is considerably larger than that for any other augmentation strategy in the treatment of major depressive disorder." In other words, if you are not prescribing atypicals for your patients who don't show adequate response to antidepressants, you are not practicing evidence-based medicine. You are a [bleeping] cowboy who is willfully disregarding science. You are denying your patients the best possible treatment. The authors don't actually say any of those things, but those are the implications. If the evidence for using antipsychotics is "considerably larger" than the evidence for anything else, then the implications are clear-cut. And this is exactly how this study will be cited. Salespeople, from drug reps to academic psychiatrists, to practitioners looking to earn a few thousand extra bucks on the side through pharma speaking gigs, will discuss this study as if it were a landmark finding.

Response and Remission: But the "evidence" is not all that convincing. Here's why... The authors pooled together the results of 16 randomized controlled trials. In these studies, patients had failed to respond adequately (using various definitions) to an antidepressant. Patients were then assigned to receive either an atypical antipsychotic or a placebo in addition to their antidepressant. Outcomes were then tabulated somewhere between 4 and 12 weeks later. The results seem clear cut -- if your brain is turned to "off" -- the response rates for atypicals was 44% compared to 30% for placebo. The remission rates were 31% for atypicals and 17% for placebo. The advantage for atypicals is statistically significant. Well, there you have it. Done deal. Ask your doctor about Abilify/Zyprexa/Seroquel today...

But the most important thing in a treatment outcome study is... the outcomes. The authors of the meta-analysis did not bother to actually measure change in scores on rating scales. Instead, they only used response and remission rates. There is absolutely no good reason for doing this. It's potentially quite misleading. Doctors like remission and response rates because they provide the illusion that we are measuring depression exactly. A "responder" got a lot better and is functioning reasonably well whereas a "non-responder" is in bed 12 hours a day while spending the rest of her time watching the E! Network, eating Bon-Bons, and sobbing constantly. But it's not nearly that scientific. A "responder" is usually defined as someone who got 50% better on his or her depression rating score during the study period. So Bob's depression rating score improved by 52% (he's a responder), but Amy's score only improved by 48%, so she's a nonresponder. Is this 4% difference really meaningful?

Let's look at the following dataset for 20 participants in a fictional study...

Improvements in depression over course of 10 week study

Drug	Placebo
40%	30%
55%	60%
50%	45%
55%	48%
52%	48%
60%	55%
60%	55%
10%	25%
20%	10%
25%	30%

Using a 50% improvement to determine if a patient is a "responder", we get a 60% response rate on drug and a 30% response rate on placebo. Lazy logic says: Oooh -- the drug is twice as effective as placebo. But is we take the average for each group, we get an average improvement of 42.7% on the drug compared to 40.6% on placebo. See the problem with response and remission rates? Similar arguments have been made by smarter people than myself.

Putting outcomes into convenient little categories makes good sense when the categories themselves make sense - events like having a heart attack, getting pregnant, or dying. If the death rate on a drug is 4% compared to 2% on a placebo, then the drug really reduced death by 50%. But if the "remission rate" or "response rate" for depression is 40% on drug compared to 20% on placebo, that does not mean the drug is twice as effective as placebo in treating depression. If you need to score a 7 or below on a depression rating scale to be "in remission", but you score an 8, are you really much worse off than the person who scored a 7?

Am I saying that the drugs really just squeaked by placebo in these studies? Well, I've read the Abilify studies and posted on them previously - in those studies, Abilify barely beat the placebo. And in the opinion of the patients themselves, Abilify didn't beat placebo at all. And the studies were designed to benefit Abilify, not to actually see if the drug worked. As I noted previously...

Patients were initially assigned to receive an antidepressant plus a placebo for eight weeks. Those who failed to respond to treatment were assigned to Abilify + antidepressant or placebo + antidepressant. Those who responded during the initial 8 weeks were then eliminated from the study. So we've already established that antidepressant + placebo didn't work for these people -- yet they were then assigned to treatment for 6 weeks with the same treatment (!) and compared to those who were assigned antidepressant + Abilify. So the antidepressant + placebo group started at a huge disadvantage because it was already established that they did not respond well to such a treatment regimen. No wonder Abilify came out on top (albeit by a modest margin).

Here's an analogy. A group of 100 students is assigned to be tutored by Tutor A regarding math. The students are all tutored for 8 weeks. The 50 students whose math skills improve are sent on their merry way. That leaves 50 students who did not improve under Tutor A's tutelage. So Tutor B comes along to tutor 25 of these students, while Tutor A sticks with 25 of them. Tutor B's students do somewhat better than Tutor A's students on a math test 6 weeks later. Is Tutor B better than tutor A? Not really a fair comparison between Tutor A and Tutor B, is it?

I've not read the other antipsychotics for depression studies. I'll even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were not designed in the same biased manner as the Abilify trials. It is, however, worth noting that the "benefit" of Abilify, in terms of response and remission rates compared to placebo, was about the same as for the other atypicals. Which leads me to think that the other atypicals probably show similar marginal benefits for depression.

But now, based solely on potentially quite misleading response and remission rates, an article appears in the American Journal of Psychiatry - a piece that has the potential to ramp up the prescribing of antipsychotics for depression to an even more ridiculous level. Let the good times roll.

Source of ironclad evidence that atypical antipsychotics are antidepressants (until you actually read the paper):

Nelson, J., & Papakostas, G. (2009). Atypical Antipsychotic Augmentation in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials American Journal of Psychiatry, 166 (9), 980-991 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09030312

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depression: Not so Effective, but FDA Approved

Apparently, the FDA will approve just about anything as an antidepressant. Despite patients indicating that they don't perceive Abilify to work as an antidepressant, the FDA approved it, likely leading to tens of thousands of Americans being able to enjoy a taste of akathisia while getting all the psychological benefits of a placebo. Good work, FDA. The shift of antipsychotics into antidepressants has been documented in many places and is, ironically, very depressing (1, 2, 3, 4).

The FDA's "anything goes" attitude regarding antidepressants apparently extends to mediocre medical devices. In 2007, a paper in Biological Psychiatry presented results from a large trial comparing TMS to sham TMS. The article concluded that the treatment was a fantastic option for depression. Well, close to that anyway. That actually wrote that "Transcranial magnetic stimulation was effective in treating major depression with minimal side effects reported. It offers clinicians a novel alternative for the treatment of this disorder."

Before all of us poor depressed souls get in line for some sweet magnetic stimulation, maybe we should, like, look at the evidence. On the primary measure of outcome, the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the results weren't quite statistically significant. So the sponsor tried to convince the FDA Neurological Devices Panel that the secondary measures showed super-impressive results. The problem: They didn't. The FDA review panel thought a few things (as can be seen in its entirety here):

• The Panel’s consensus was that the efficacy was not established; some stated that the device’s effectiveness was “small,” “borderline,” “marginal” and “of questionable clinical significance.” The Study 01 endpoint with a p value of 0.057 per se was not considered a fatal flaw in the study analysis. The Panel did not believe that clinical significance was demonstrated with these results.
• In general, the panel believed that the analyses of the secondary effectiveness endpoints did not contribute significant information to help establish the effectiveness of the device.
• The Panel agreed that unblinding was greater in the active group, and considering the magnitude of the effect size, it may have influenced the study results. (35.8% of people receiving TMS reported pain at the application site compared to only 3.8% in the sham TMS group. This is a quick way to make a study unblind, as people experiencing pain could logically surmise that they were receiving TMS).
• The Panel stated that there were too many non-random dropouts to reliably interpret these results. The Panel’s consensus was that the Week 6 data was of limited value and did not provide supportive data for establishing effectiveness. (After week 4, patients who did not show adequate improvement were given the option to quit the double-blind study; over half of patients departed the study after week 4).
  

One more doozy. A quote follows from a letter to the editor in Biological Psychiatry in which TMS is taken to task.

The authors note that some patient outcome measures were collected in the trial but omitted from the article. Of the 15 secondary end points the authors included in the paper, 11 were statistically significant. Of 11 secondary end points not included, 2 were statistically significant. Thus, the published end points were three times more likely to be statistically significant than the unpublished ones.

TMS was denied FDA-approval in January, 2007. But in October 2008, the FDA had a change of heart, approving the device. I'm not quite sure what changed the mind of the FDA.

The following disclaimer on the device's website is a bit funny:

NeuroStar TMS Therapy has not been studied in patients who have not received prior antidepressant treatment. Its effectiveness has also not been established in patients who have failed to receive benefit from two or more prior antidepressant medications at minimal effective dose and duration in the current episode.

So it's only demonstrated (weak) efficacy in people who have failed one (not zero, not more than one) antidepressant trial. Impressive, eh? To summarize, the sponsor and its affiliated academics wrote a paper in a major psychiatry journal in which positive outcomes were three times as likely to be reported as negative outcomes. The efficacy data were unimpressive according to an FDA panel -- and these panels are not known for being particularly choosy about efficacy data. It seemed that TMS was dead in the water, only to be resurrected in the form of a surprising FDA approval. And if being resurrected from the grave doesn't make for a great Halloween post, then what does?

Offending Study:
O’Reardon, J., Solvason, H., Janicak, P., Sampson, S., Isenberg, K., Nahas, Z., McDonald, W., Avery, D., Fitzgerald, P., & Loo, C. (2007). Efficacy and Safety of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Acute Treatment of Major Depression: A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial Biological Psychiatry, 62 (11), 1208-1216 DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.01.018

Letter to Editor:
Yu, E., & Lurie, P. (2009). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Not Proven Effective Biological Psychiatry DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.03.026

Lend Me Your Name

Journalism regarding the horrors of ghostwritten papers in medical journals is all the rage these days (1, 2, 3). Here's my very small contribution. The document shown below from a medical writing company has been described elsewhere. But it is worth seeing in its glory firsthand. The document is from Wyeth's ghostwriting firm, DesignWrite. It was part of the Premarin/hormone replacement therapy disaster (see below). Perhaps you remember the era when hormone replacement therapy was being prescribed for all sorts of people because it was supposedly a wonder treatment. So what if it increased risk for breast cancer and perhaps other conditions as well? Not to worry, DesignWrite could get around that...

In layman's terms, it goes like this... Wyeth -- you give us some hints about the marketing spin you'd like us to put on your studies. We'll then write up the studies accordingly and have big-name academics sign off as if they had something to do with our oh-so-objective "research". And don't worry, Wyeth, you get to review all papers we write up to make sure we market your drug appropriately.

We now know that several academics participated in this program. To quote one ethicist, regarding the academics who lent their names as authors: "They sold their credentials for false credit and money." DesignWrite's current slogan is: "Where we put clinical data to work." Hmmm. DesignWrite gets paid, Wyeth gets paid, and the academics who lend their names get paid and/or get another publication to boost their stock in the academic world.

Oh, and patients, what did they get out this... breast cancer. But who cares about them anyway -- patients are just little buckets of money; it's not like they're real human beings.

A summary of the results that led to the downfall of hormone replacement therapy

Three years after stopping hormone therapy, women who had taken study pills with active estrogen plus progestin no longer had an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (heart disease, stroke, and blood clots) compared with women on placebo. The lower risk of colorectal cancer seen in women who had taken active E+P disappeared after stopping the intervention. The benefit for fractures (broken bones) in women who had taken active E+P also disappeared after stopping hormone therapy. On the other hand, the risk of all cancers combined in women who had used E+P increased after stopping the intervention compared to those on placebo. This was due to increases in a variety of cancers, including lung cancer. After stopping the intervention, mortality from all causes was somewhat higher in women who had taken active E+P pills compared with the placebo.

Based on the findings mentioned above, the study’s global index that summarized risk and benefits was unchanged, showing that the health risks exceeded the health benefits from the beginning of the study through the end of this three year follow-up. The follow-up after stopping estrogen plus progestin confirms the study’s main conclusion that combination hormone therapy (E+P) should not be used to prevent disease in healthy, postmenopausal women. The most important message to women who have stopped this hormone therapy is to continue seeing their physicians for rigorous prevention and screening activities for all important preventable health conditions.

I'm glad to see that ghostwriting is now the topic du jour in health journalism. But in a few weeks, the attention will vanish as the drug industry and its associated writing firms will agree to allegedly stringent guidelines that ensure this never happens again. And nothing will actually change. I mean, seriously, do you think academic researchers are going to write their own papers? Do you think drug companies are going to stop hiring writers to expertly spin the data? The current system works too well for it to simply go away.

Thanks to an alert reader for sending this document along. You can search for more documents at the Drug Industry Document Archive, including those from Wyeth and DesignWrite. Happy digging!

Wanted: Drug Pimp/Key Opinion Leader

Daniel Carlat from the Carlat Psychiatry Blog received an invitation to the key opinion leader club from the good people at Schering-Plough. The company wanted him to read their slides to other physicians in order to promote their brand spanikn' new antipsychotic/mood stabilizer Saphris (asenapine). Because, of course, if he reads the slides, they are more credible than if read by one of those sleazy drug reps; it's so much more classy and believable if an "independent" psychiatrist reads the company's marketing copy.

Carlat posted the documents used in the attempt to recruit him (cover letter, speaker bureau arrangement, pimp, er, speaker fees) Everyone should read them. Speakers are only allowed to rake in $170,000 of dirty money through this program. I suppose anything more would make them look like shameless drug pimps. But if you were to take, say, $50k for your "educational" services, that would be totally acceptable, right? I hereby nominate anyone who accepts Schering-Plough's generous offer for the much coveted Golden Goblet Award.

What's the deal with this Saphris drug, anyway? One neuropsychologist reviewed the data and found that it promises to be yet another also-ran atypical antipsychotic, at best. Some have also raised questions of whether the drug deserved FDA approval at all. Get ready for some ghostwritten articles that present the evidence surrounding Saphris in a ridiculously biased manner, for key opinion leaders to travel to conferences extolling its virtues, and for the rest of the usual marketing tricks.

Key Opinion Leader Syndrome

I ran across a rather hilarious article from Medical Hypotheses, in which David Healy described "Krapelin-Fraud Syndrome", which I have also dubbed "Key Opinion Leader Syndrome." See below for the diagnostic criteria.

In line with current neo-Kraepelinian thinking, we put forward operational criteria for this new disorder for provisional inclusion in ICD-XI or DSM-V. An affected subject should meet at least 2 of criteria A–D and 2 more from criteria E–J. Fulfillment of all criteria A–D in the absence of any other features of the disorder will make the diagnosis, although this may represent a syndromal variant.
(A) A pervasive pattern of travelling to scientific conferences and talking about research data that he has had no involvement in generating.
(B) Episodic logosagnosia.
(C) Unusual abilities to compartmentalise information.
(D) Will have a significant number of ‘‘ghost-written” articles.
(E) Actively seeks admiration by peers and subordinates.
(F) An exaggerated sense of own talents, which can be inferred from expectations of recognition as an expert in the absence of commensurate achievements. Happy in the role of opinion leader.
(G) Has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment from symposium and congress organisers.
(H) Liable to profound dysphoria if not involved with the ‘‘academic action”.
(I) May be unreasonably envious of the scientific achievements of others and is liable to denigrate these. Would also be unhappy if his colleagues had appeared on ‘‘educational” videos and he had not.
(J) Is unaware of the disorder quality of the syndrome.

Two case studies are included, one of which reads in part:

One of the striking features of his lecturing is the dissociation between his reputation as a critical and skeptical lecturer when dealing with topics on the main programme of the meeting and the extent to which he may be prepared to offer apparently enthusiastic and uncritical endorsement for a compound in a satellite symposium. Very frequently this uncritical endorsement will involve the recycling of outdated ideas, which it is difficult to believe that either B or indeed many of his audience can conceivably believe and which indeed he may contradict within the hour at another symposium.

Hmmmm. Enthusiastic and uncritical endorsement of [insert product name here]. That reminds me of a post or two I've written... I made a rough list of symptoms for KOL Syndrome in July 2008. Different symptoms, but same idea.

The Asenapine Chronicles?

I'm not sure what to make of this. A lot of documents have become available on the Shearlings Got Plowed blog, which deal with the new antipsychotic drug asenapine. If I had the time, I'd be burying myself in the documents, as SGP claims that something fishy is going on. I encourage all interested readers to take a good, long look at the documents to see what (if anything) is happening.

Documents such as this one will catch your interest...

Thanks For Your Service, Now Take This Pill

According to a freshly published study, one in five depressed patients receiving services through the VA healthcare system in the United States is taking an antipsychotic. Of those taking antipsychotics, 43% were taking them at high doses (schizophrenia doses rather than lower doses typically used in treating depression). The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, excluded patients with schizophrenia or bipolar diagnoses -- this means that the antipsychotics given to the depressed folks weren't mainly used to treat psychosis or mania. The sample size was over 190,000 patients, so one can't fault the study for not including enough patients. The researchers examined drugs taken within one week of their last antipsychotic prescription and found that 24% of patients were taking multiple antipsychotics at that point.

The most used medication was Seroquel. This is not suprising. Patients seen in mental health speciality clinics were the most likely to receive antipsychotics. So what are the consequences? Well, let's see. There's the high rate of akathisia and medicore efficacy of Abilify. And there's some tricky research involving Risperdal that seemed to suggest the manipulation of the statistics was more impressive than the actual drug in treating depression. Seroquel's unimpressive efficacy and problematic side effects are also not a ball of fun. And so forth. Isn't "progress" beautiful?

I know what some people are thinking, so before you waste your valuable time with a comment, consider this. I'm aware that many of these patients are suffering much more than a simple case of the blues. That doesn't mean we should throw heavy duty antipsychotics at them, particularly at high doses. Certainly there has to be something else. What might that be? Some psychotherapy, some medications, some case management - I ain't saying it'll be easy. But I'm willing to bet that chucking antipsychotics at them en masse is not the solution.

Will Pharma's (Tax) Free Speech Be Limited?

Dan Neil has an absolutely marvelous column in the LA Times about pharma's bitching/moaning regarding increased regulation of its advertising and its potential loss of tax writeoffs associated with drug ads. It's nice to know that when I'm watching a misleading advertisement for, say, Cymbalta or Abilify, pharma is writing off the advertising cost on its tax bill. Big Pharma's legal consultants have weighed in for years on this topic, using such terms as "starkly unconstitutional," "censorship," "plainly violates the First Amendment", and adding that taking away the tax deduction is "Draconian punishment" - see this document from the pharma-friendly Washington Legal Foundation and just try to keep a straight face.

Neil writes that:

Currently in draft form, these [FDA] rules would dramatically raise the legal bar for risk disclosure. Not only would advertisements have to fully explicate serious side effects, the nature of adverse reactions, the risk of dependence, dangerous drug interactions and so on, but all of that would also have to be communicated in the most direct, unambiguous and, if you will, artless form possible.

And, picking some of the low-hanging fruit, Neil goes on to describe two of my most hated ads:

Consider, the current 75-second spot for Abilify, a powerful antipsychotic drug marketed as a potential add-on to antidepressants. At the 33-second mark, the warnings start: "thoughts of suicide," "elderly dementia patients . . . have an increased risk of death or stroke," "uncontrollable muscle movements [that] may become permanent" and so on. The astonishing thing is that Bristol-Myers Squibb spent more than $35 million in the first quarter alone to market this witch's brew.

Seizures, death, trouble swallowing. Jeez, I get depressed just watching the ad. Maybe that's the idea.

Another wonder drug -- as in, I wonder if this will kill me? -- is Wyeth's Pristiq. Again, the potential adverse reactions are alarming: "Antidepressants can increase suicidal thoughts and behaviors in children, teens and young adults," the ad says. "May cause or worsen high blood pressure, high cholesterol and glaucoma."

Scary stuff. And yet, the FDA might say, not scary enough. Because the voice-over rambles on with a litany of potential side effects, some of which is quite hard to follow, the commercial seems to violate the FDA's constraint that advertisements not overwhelm viewers' "cognitive load." On a more prosaic level, the imagery of this suffering woman suddenly redeemed by this medication, so that now she's playing with her family at the park, seems to vastly over-promise relief.

Vastly over-promising relief, indeed. Watching Congress, the FDA, the pharma-funded academic hired guns, and lawyers on these issues will make for an entertaining spectator sport. Not nearly as engrossing as watching the DSM-V drama unfold (1, 2, 3), but still a lot cheaper than going to a Yankees game.

Award Winning Journalism (?)

Erroneous reporting wins prestigious award, starring Charles Nemeroff. Oy. Brought to you courtesy of Health Care Renewal. Read the full story and shake your head. Teaser:

Something about the simultaneously complex and sympathetic nature of mental health reporting is making reputable journalistic organizations and well-meaning reporters sloppy.